The little white lies Amazon tells...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by samhy

But the only way to have the discount price is to pay $9.99 first. You can't pay only $3.99 and get just the audible version.

Yes, in just the same way that in "buy one, get one free" offers, you have to buy the initial item in order to get the second one free. This is not exactly a revolutionary selling technique . I certainly don't think it can be considered a "lie", as the OP regards it.

[Vmurph]

Originally Posted by samhy

But the only way to have the discount price is to pay $9.99 first. You can't pay only $3.99 and get just the audible version.

Right, but that doesn't negate the fact that the savings on the audiobook would still be 87%.

Just because you have to purchase something else in order to get the audiobook at a discount, doesn't mean the 87% isn't accurate.

Remember, they don't have to be purchased at the same time. If you go back a few months later and purchase the audiobook, you'll get it at 87% off....without purchasing anything else.

[Vmurph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, in just the same way that in "buy one, get one free" offers, you have to buy the initial item in order to get the second one free.

Exactly.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I still don't "get it." I usually "get it" by now. Is there anything to be got here?

The OP seems to be of the opinion that "saving money" can only be called as such when you can buy the single article on it's own.

Audiobook: $30 -> Buy for $4 = Save $26

Audiobook: $30
E-book: $10
Buy audiobook for $4 because you bought the e-book first -> You don't save $26, because you are "forced" to buy the ebook first, which costs $10, so you only save $16. Thus, Amazon lies.

At least, I assume that this is what the OP means. (It can only be explained like this if you were 100% uninterested in the ebook to begin with.)

[DiapDealer]

The OP would have a point if the message said; "savings on the entire bundle will amount to 87%". But it didn't. Seemed pretty clear to me that the "savings" were limited to the add-on audiobook portion.

Besides, who really uses the percentages when it comes to making purchase decisions? I consider many things still too expensive at 50, 60 and even 75% off. It's the dollar amount that needs to be in my wheelhouse before I pull the trigger.

[Alfy]

The purchases are linked, you cannot get one without the other, so looking at the savings on the second item separately is misleading, a practice that is common, albeit not usually with books, it's mostly used in supermarkets. If this kind of false advertising does not bother anyone else and you're just happy to get the deal, then so be it, but don't call me on my maths.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, in just the same way that in "buy one, get one free" offers, you have to buy the initial item in order to get the second one free. This is not exactly a revolutionary selling technique . I certainly don't think it can be considered a "lie", as the OP regards it.

First, remember that I agree with you. It's only on stretching things a bit that I get what the OP has expressed in the second post (or at least what I think was expressed).

But if I follow you're "buy one, get one free" example, I end up with a 50% discount, not a 100% one. Am I the only one here?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by samhy

But if I follow you're "buy one, get one free" example, I end up with a 50% discount, not a 100% one. Am I the only one here?

I think the difference here is that the audiobook offer becomes available only after the purchase of the ebook, which is standalone.

In a "buy one, get one free" I'd be happy that it could be considered either way, either as a 100% saving on the second item or as a 50% saving on the bundle.

However, here, the audiobook is clearly a second transaction. The purchase of the ebook is unaffected whether you go on to buy the audiobook or not. So here, I think it's a big stretch to consider the saving as applying to the bundle, and I think Amazon's justified in showing the discount percentage as relating entirely to the audiobook.

To extend the supermarket analogy: if you were given a "50% off your next purchase" voucher on checkout, you wouldn't consider that 50% off items in the basket you've just bought. At least, I wouldn't.

Graham

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by Alfy

The purchases are linked, you cannot get one without the other, so looking at the savings on the second item separately is misleading, a practice that is common, albeit not usually with books, it's mostly used in supermarkets. If this kind of false advertising does not bother anyone else and you're just happy to get the deal, then so be it, but don't call me on my maths.

Fair enough. However, everywhere either puts items on sale showing savings from RRP that they are rarely sold for or inflates the prices of items before putting them on sale so they can pretend you are making a bigger saving. Or in the example you are talking about, linking products, making you spend more and 'highlighting' the savings.

They are pretty much the same thing as far as I can see, and as you say yourself, these kind of sales tactics are common practise. Immaterial of being bothered with it or not, seems pointless to me to target one retailer and start a thread about their little white lies?

[Alfy]

Originally Posted by samhy

First, remember that I agree with you. It's only on stretching things a bit that I get what the OP has expressed in the second post (or at least what I think was expressed).

But if I follow you're "buy one, get one free" example, I end up with a 50% discount, not a 100% one. Am I the only one here?

No, you are not, and your example is spot on. Supermarkets have long understood that saying "buy 2 at 50%" does not sell as much as the magic word "free".

It is indeed classic marketing. In the case I was presenting, Amazon sells a bundle of 2 items. If bought separately, the first item costs the same, while the second is much more expensive. However, when you make the purchase, if you care about your bank account, you look at the cost of the bundle. Saying "I'm saving so much on the second item" is wrong, because for you as a consumer, AND for Amazon as a retailer, all that matters is that you have bought a bundle, not 2 separate items, at a certain price. Advertising the discount on the second item only is a hook.

And for those who do not see where the problem is, let me try an imaginary example. Let's imagine a company is selling you an audiobook it says is discounted at 87%. You click on buy now, and the retailer now tells you that, in order to get the discount, you need to first buy the ebook. Now obviously, you would be pretty peeved by these practices, but let's put that aside and let's imagine you are still interested because the price is right. Are you still thinking you are getting 87% discount on anything? Or do you start thinking about the actual discount, unadvertised, you will actually get for the bundle?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by samhy

First, remember that I agree with you. It's only on stretching things a bit that I get what the OP has expressed in the second post (or at least what I think was expressed).

But if I follow you're "buy one, get one free" example, I end up with a 50% discount, not a 100% one. Am I the only one here?

If you walk in to buy just one pair of shoes, a BOGO deal is offering you the second pair absolutely free

Having bought the ebook at $3.99, Amazon reminded the OP that he now qualified for an *optional* 87% discount on the Audiobook. He chose to pass on the offer. Just as you don't really have to pick up the second item in a BOGO sale.
Two separate consumer decisions, not one.

Modern retail techniques can be confusing...to some...

Cuban baseball players are routinrly baffled by 21st century shopping so most MLB teams run them through classes teaching them how to navigate a consumerist society. And they aren't the only ones baffled by the choices they are offered. Critical reading of market-ese is a skill.

(For examlle, there are actually entire hordes of publishers and authors who apparently still don't "get" basket pricing strategies.)

[Alfy]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

Fair enough. However, everywhere either puts items on sale showing savings from RRP that they are rarely sold for or inflates the prices of items before putting them on sale so they can pretend you are making a bigger saving. Or in the example you are talking about, linking products, making you spend more and 'highlighting' the savings.

They are pretty much the same thing as far as I can see, and as you say yourself, these kind of sales tactics are common practise. Immaterial of being bothered with it or not, seems pointless to me to target one retailer and start a thread about their little white lies?

Well, two reasons: 1/ I guess I should not have mentioned Amazon in the title at all, as it seems the very name derails a thread. I don't think I can change the title, but if anyone know how, I'll be happy to do it. 2/ Maybe I'm dumb and old, but it does bother me to see supermarket tactics invading the world of books, digital or not. To be honest, I regret starting the thread, as I feel fairly lonely in my opinion.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Alfy

. In the case I was presenting, Amazon sells a bundle of 2 items.

There is your problem: it is not a bundle.
A BAEN webscription is a bundle, a six pack of beer is a bundle--a BOGO is a qualified offer. Different creature.

A bundle is integral: you get both in one transaction. Mandatory. In some cases, bundling is even illegal.

A qualified offer is two linked transactions. You don't *have* to accept the second part, though the retailer usually wants you to. In this case, having carried out the first transaction, you qualify for the second deal--which you can either accept or deny and the purchase of the ebook is not contingent on buying the audio book; just the converse.

With Amazon, you can still go back and get the audio book. With a classic BOGO, the qualified offer expires at the checkout when you accept or decline the second item. Most folks accept the second item but they are not forced to. And, infact, with BOGOHO deals many shoppers decline the second item.

If you ever bought print books at Amazon, you can go to their Matchbook page, mentioned above, and see which (if any) of those purchases qualify you for a discount on the ebook version. Prices vary so some offers are worth accepting while others aren't. Your choice. It's not tied together, like a bundle, merely linked.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Alfy

... it does bother me to see supermarket tactics invading the world of books, digital or not.

You are not alone.
That precisely is why Amazon is so hated by the traditional publishing estsblishment: they brought 21st century pricing and marketing to the "gentile" world of "literature" and fixed prices.

Try this:
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...ening-keynote/

"Amazon are evil bastards–I loath them, I fear them,” said best-selling British author Anthony Horowitz, giving the opening keynote speech at the London Book Fair’s Publishing for Digital Minds conference in London, quickly adding, “but I use them all the time because they’re wonderful and that’s part of the problem.”

There is a snarky term for this: ADS -- Amazon Derangement Syndrome. It is where everything Amazon doesis by definition evil, but far worse (often illegal) activities are defended as perfectly fine when done by the establishment.

(Examples abound, but would definitely derail the thread.)

Fortunately, there is a simple, cheap cure for ADS.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Alfy

The purchases are linked, you cannot get one without the other, so looking at the savings on the second item separately is misleading, a practice that is common, albeit not usually with books, it's mostly used in supermarkets. If this kind of false advertising does not bother anyone else and you're just happy to get the deal, then so be it, but don't call me on my maths.

It's not "false advertising". You can get an 87% discount off the audiobook if you buy the ebook, exactly as stated. Don't blame Amazon for your failure to read the offer correctly.